WASHINGTON —When talks between the White House and the U.S. bishops stalled this spring, Church leaders focused on an array of legal and legislative remedies designed to repeal a coercive federal contraception mandate that forced Catholic institutions to violate moral doctrine.

Now, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will be evaluating a new proposal that is designed to "repeal" financial penalties that could be imposed on religious employers who fail to comply with the contraception mandate, but is not crafted with the intent of rescinding the mandate itself.Authored by two Republican lawmakers,Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Diane Black, R-Tenn., the proposed Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act is likely to stir debate about whether its limited goal is worthy of support, or far too modest.

The contraception mandate requires private employers to provide co-pay-free contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs, and is authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. On Jan. 20, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, approved the mandate, igniting a campaign by the bishops and other religious leaders to overturn the threat to their religious freedom.

But the First Amendment crusade has had no discernible impact on President Obama's resolve to weather the controversy. In a July 9 televised interview in New Orleans, he signaled his resistance to any policy change.

The president asserted that "big Catholic hospitals or universities who employ a lot of non-Catholics and who receive a lot of federal money, that for them to be in a position to say to a woman who works there you can't get that from your insurance company even though the institution isn't paying for it, that that crosses the line where that woman, she suddenly is gonna have to bear the burden and the cost of that. And that's not fair."

Sensenbrenner's proposed bill would “exempt employers from any excise tax and certain suits and penalties in the case of a failure of a group health plan to provide coverage to which an employer objects on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction.”

The legislation “does not eliminate any of the current preventive services included in the Essential Health Benefits Package,” read a statement released by Sensenbrenner’s and Black’s offices. Instead, the bill is designed to prohibit “the federal government from enforcing the penalties of non-compliance with the HHS mandate under ERISA [Employer Retirement Income Security Act], the PHSA [Public Health Service Act] and the IRC [Internal Revenue Code] for not complying based on religious beliefs and moral convictions.”

The two Republican lawmakers, both Protestants concerned with establishing a united front against an unprecedented threat to the First Amendment, unveiled their bill today at a press conference attended by a number of leading GOP House members, including Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., who introduced, in 2011, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, now stalled in Congress.

“With the HHS mandate, the administration has set up an impossible choice for many religious-affiliated institutions: Either violate the law and pay a tax, or violate your conscience. This means some of the most respected parochial schools, hospitals, soup kitchens and universities across our country will have to choose between violating their faith to keep their doors open or paying a potentially devastating tax,” said Black in a statement released today.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had only just received the bill and could not comment on it at press time. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty also said it would study its language before making a statement. The Becket Fund, a public interest group, represents the Eternal Word Television Network in its legal challenge to the HHS mandate; the Register is a service of EWTN.

Gerard Bradley, a constitutional scholar at the University of Notre Dame, did have time to review the bill's language and expressed concern about the narrow scope of the legislation, however well-intentioned.

“The Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act would protect not only religious employers (like Notre Dame) from having to pay ruinous penalties and taxes for witnessing to the truth. It would protect employers in industry and commerce who would stand by the truth as well,” acknowledged Bradley.

”Nonetheless, I think that this bill is a step which it would be better not to take,” he added.

“The mandate itself remains intact as legally binding upon religious and commercial employers alike, notwithstanding their conscientious objections. To achieve its aims, this ‘repeal’ act would have to be amended each time the administration promulgated some new, additional sanction for non-compliance.”

Bradley argued that “passing this law or any one like it would inevitably relieve the political pressure upon Congress to do the right thing, which is to rescind the HHS mandate altogether. And that pressure needs to be applied hard — and relentlessly.”

But Sensenbrenner defended the “narrow” focus of his bill as the "best shot" available, at least until after the election.

“I want to keep the debate on the narrow issue of taxes and penalties imposed for non-compliance. This is the best shot I see available right now," Sensenbrenner told the Register.

“We might be able to force the Obama administration to reach a compromise” if “the people in the pews react against the imposition of the tax,” he said.

Paul Danello, an expert on health-care law and a canon lawyer, echoed Bradley’s concern about the bill’s modest scope.

“Rep. Sensenbrenner's bill only just manages, in St. Paul's phrase, to snatch Catholic dioceses and institutions 'from the lion's jaws. Yet how surreal its highly technical language of 'taxes' and 'insurance coverage' and 'moral objection' sounds when one is dealing with the impending murder of innocents and the heavy foot of government firmly planted on the neck of the Church,” Danello said.

“It will be quite revealing to see the reaction of Obama, Pelosi and Sebelius to this very modest legislative accommodation to the First Amendment.”

As approved by Secretary Sebelius, the HHS mandate includes a narrow religious exemption that shields houses of worship, but not Catholic universities, hospitals and social agencies. They must comply with the requirement or possibly face huge financial penalties, as well as lawsuits from employees who want co-pay-free services that violate religious or moral beliefs.

A “Congressional Research Report” released in February 2012 suggested that employers and insurers who refuse to comply with the federal law could incur annual financial penalties totaling as much as $36,500 per employee.

“It seems possible that enforcement mechanisms found in Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) could be applied to these non-compliant health plans,” read the congressional research memo. The report also suggested that employees could challenge non-compliance in court:

“If a group health plan or health-insurance issuer failed to provide contraceptive services pursuant to guidelines authorized by ACA, it seems possible ... that a plan participant could be able to bring a claim for that benefit.”

Many objecting religious institutions may qualify for a one-year extension before they must comply with the HHS mandate. But employee lawsuits could be filed as soon as the objecting employer's health plan begins a new year. Rep.Sensenbrenner told the Register that his bill provided no protection against employee lawsuits because he feared that measure would be blocked in the Senate. The Senate, he charged, has consistently defended the interests of trial lawyers amid repeated efforts at tort reform.

In February, the Obama administration reportedly sought to tamp down concern about the mandate’s coercive power against objecting religious groups by proposing an “accommodation” that passed on the responsibility for co-pay-free coverage from religious employers to their insurance carriers, but the majority of Catholic institutions are self-insured and thus would remain responsible for providing the coverage.

In any case, the bishops’ conference has also noted that the proposed “accommodation” is not the law, and the controversial mandate has not been formally altered since it was approved on Jan. 20.

Last month, Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, reversed her support for the accommodation, issuing a public statement that said it was unworkable for her membership.

On June 9, Catholic Charities in the Chicago Archdiocese joined 23 Catholic plaintiffs that had already filed legal challenges to the HHS mandate in court.

Recently, on the campaign trail, President Obama has recalled the inspiring work of Catholic community groups in Chicago, where he worked as a community organizer.

Catholic Charities in Chicago employs about 2,700 full- and part-time employees, a workforce bolstered by an army of volunteers. If the government moves to impose fines on objecting religious institutions, Catholic Charities could be required to pay massive annual penalties.

“Anymore questions???” :) Yes, thanks for asking. Why did you decide to join the Democrat Party and what are your 3 top reasons for staying registered in the Democrat Party? What are 3 top reasons for not registering in the Republican Party?

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul, 13, 2012 9:19 AM (EST):

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had only just received the bill and could not comment on it at press time.”

Hmmmm. The USCCB couldn’t comment on the bill because they just got it. I guess we are lead to believe the USCCB reads bills before commenting on them. That raises a question; did they read the so called Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare” before endorsing it? All 2700 pages?

@ CeCi Castillo

“I’he always suspected that EWTN and The National Catholic Register are extremely right-wing and are the mouth piece of the Republican party and now my suspicions are very true.”

“suspected;” “suspicions;” sinister words to use in context of talking about media outlets. Is there something illegal, or morally wrong with being “extremely right-wing” and reporting that way?

Posted by CeCi Castillo on Friday, Jul, 13, 2012 9:12 AM (EST):

I’m a registered Democrat since 1968 and I may shock you by this but I try to vote for the person and not for the party…and I have voted for Republicans like Barbara Vucanovich of Nevada and Jon Huntsmans. Voted for Gerald Ford too. Republicans who really cared about the people. There you have it. Anymore questions???

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul, 13, 2012 9:01 AM (EST):

CeCi Castillo, I take it you are not registered in the Republican Party. Would you mind stating if you are registered to vote and how you are registered to vote? Thanks

Posted by Lin on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 5:28 PM (EST):

To CeCi Castillo : WHY are you reading NCR? I don’t read the Huffington Post? Peace be with you!

Posted by Donnie Schenck on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 5:01 PM (EST):

This legislation looks like an answer to our prayers, but more is needed to protect liberty of conscience, along with freedom of religion: The Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act, a.k.a. The Healthcare Tax Relief and Mandate Repeal Act (H.R.6048) would remove the mandate that people buy health insurance, but it does not remove the parts of the new federal law, nor the parts of existing state law, which prevent health insurance companies from choosing not to fund unconscionable things such as ab0rtion, contracepti0n, and steri|ization. Please contact your congressmen, both on the state and federal level, and ask them to fix this problem, not only on the surface, but at the root. And let us pray.

@ceci Since when does dissent from President Obama’s policy make you “extreme right wing.” Why does standing up for the Constitution make you right wing?

There is great moral and intellectual vacuity in an argument when the arguer has to resort to personal, ad hominen, attack. This all the critics of the Church have to offer in defense of the HHS mandate.

Posted by CeCi Castillo on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 11:49 AM (EST):

To Hat Lady; Roe vs. Wade has been on the law books since 1973 and trust me I’m not any happier about it than you are. I’m just as pro-life as your are if not more. We’ve had Republican presidents who claim to be pro-life and have never done anything about getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I did adopt a child, who thank God is healthy. I work in “THE SYSTEM” with foster care kids and have come to the conclusion that there are some people who should not reproduce, most of them strung out on drugs and alcohol while the mother is pregnant and we have all of these drug babies who end up in state custody with all sorts of disabilities and anomalies. No they should not be aborted and should be given an chance at life. Unfortunately, there are few people willing to take on the task of caring for them due to their many disabilities not to mention the expense because your beloved Republicans want to take funding away so that these kids don’t get a decent life. I would like to know how many of you so called “devout pro-life Catholics Republicans” are willing to take one of these children into their homes as foster kids or adopt them?

Posted by CeCi Castillo on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 11:26 AM (EST):

To Robert Waligora: If/When I go to hell Robert, people like you will be right behind me.

Posted by Vance on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 11:09 AM (EST):

The GOP has been working with the Catholic Church by submitting Bills to over turn the HHS mandate but Harry Reid and the Marxist Democrat Party Senate have blocked all GOP efforts. This demonstrates why all Catholics need to vote out Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party this November and beyond.

Posted by That Hat Lady on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 7:27 AM (EST):

“Extreme right wing.” Since when does protecting life in the womb, and not wanting to fund an immoral act, become an extreme view? Since when did religious freedom become an extreme view? Name one Democrat who wants to preserve the freedom to free exercise religion in the public square. *Not one.* That is what’s extreme.

Posted by robert waligora on Thursday, Jul, 12, 2012 7:01 AM (EST):

ceci….better to belong to the party of LIFE, than the party of ETERNAL DAMNATION….the reason our country has sold its soul to hell is because of catholics and the clergy that voted for the democrat party…the killing of the child in the womb…..the depravity of same-sex abomination…in the words of MOTHER ANGELICA..“YOU LIBERALS MAKE ME SICK”..in my words in which i pull no punches..YOU LIBERALS CAN ALL GO TO HELL

Posted by Substance, Please on Tuesday, Jul, 10, 2012 9:49 PM (EST):

Add Reps. Sensenbrenner and Black to the list of those carrying water on the most significant new Respect Life front in the United States. However imperfect, their action regards our Bishops more than any other to date. Who will stand for us?

Posted by CeCi Castillo on Tuesday, Jul, 10, 2012 8:57 PM (EST):

I’he always suspected that EWTN and The National Catholic Register are extremely right-wing and are the mouth piece of the Republican party and now my suspicions are very true.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.